No reason justifies disbelief.

[Alan V]

Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

So you disbelieve that reason can cause disbelief?  I guess you have no reason for your disbelief then.

[fredd bear]

"Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous"

Making a claim followed by am emotional statement is not an argument. Once again you have set yourself up; you've made a claim. You have the burden of proof. Up to you to prove your claim (and no, it ain't our job to disprove anything)

I don't have any confidence that you will make any kind of rational reply. Your posts have left me with the conclusion that you are incapable of reasoned argument, and have no understanding of scientific method or scholarly debate.

[Rahn127]

When there are zero reasons to believe a claim

How did you decide that the reasons other people use to believe the claim are in fact not reasons?

Perhaps I should have said "When there are zero valid reasons" or "zero demonstrable reasons"

I can evaluate a person's reason for believing a claim and label it a valid or invalid reason.

If I said "I believe that Bigfoot exists" and my reason is because the sky is blue, I think you might agree that although the reason is a truthful statement, it is also not a valid reason for believing that Bigfoot exists.

If my reasons were..."I have blood, hair and skeletal remains that are consistent with the mythical creature we call Bigfoot" then that would be a valid reason for belief.

If someone would care to demonstrate their reasons for believing that a god exists, I would most certainly listen.

[LadyForCamus]

all it gets you to is a prime mover.  What does that tell us about a god?  Nothing.  It’s generic deism at best.

That's right. The Aristotelian argument is for a Prime Mover. If a Christian wants to say any more about it, they have to have different arguments. That's standard.

It isn't deism, though. In deism, God makes the world and goes away. In the Aristotelian Thomist system God sustains the world in being at every moment.

Even if I give you that argument, right down to the contingency of the universe on the prime mover, that still would only be an argument for a prime mover, do you understand? What is your definition of god, Belaqua?

Wrong.  I am offering you the opportunity to present a different metaphysical commitment; an alternative method to the scientific method for information and fact-gathering about a claim (“god exists.”), and defend its reliability and accuracy. 

So far, you have done everything except that, lol.

No, I'm right in saying that this is your metaphysical commitment. A belief that only science-type evidence gives evidence for the world is a metaphysical belief.

As for your kind offer, I have said that logical arguments are sometimes persuasive in showing what must be true. I know you reject this; others don't.

Wow! You’re excellent at avoiding questions! Bravo. 😏  I’m not committed to anything.  I’m open to the idea of a different methodological information gathering tool (in place of the scientific method) for acquiring knowledge about god claims, so long as it can be demonstrated to be reliable. If you present me with one, I’ll start using it. It’s just, I’ve asked you like, four times now, and you’re failure to present me with anything even close shows that your tacit answer is: “I don’t know/there isn’t one”.

Logical arguments for god are not metaphysical information-gathering tools. They’re forumas that use assumptions based on the observable universe, or IOW, the very same empirical data that you have already asserted could not be useful in the pursuit of knowledge about a god, so which is it? Let me know when you’ve made up your mind. Also, I noticed that while you were busy avoiding my first question, you managed to also avoid my second one, so I’ll try again:

Why are you, personally, not persuaded by the logical arguments for god?

This is embarrassing for you.  You’re either very confused, or lying, or both.

[Belacqua]

Even if I give you that argument, right down to the contingency of the universe on the prime mover, that still would only be an argument for a prime mover, do you understand? 

That's right. I just said that. I understand it. 

A Prime Mover is a Prime Mover, and if a Christian wants to argue for more attributes, he needs to make separate arguments.

Why do I have to say things twice?

What is your definition of god, Belaqua?

I don't have one, particularly. I am working on several different ones. 

Then there is the apophatic idea of God, which makes the lack of our ability to define God something important in our understanding. That's an interesting train of thought. 

I'm not avoiding anything, and I'm not lying. And it's not fair of you to accuse me. 

You don't like my answers, that's all. 

You said very clearly that only science-type evidence is evidence. If that's what you think, that's your metaphysical commitment. 

I'm perfectly happy to say "I don't know" about a lot of these questions. Unlike you, I haven't yet mastered each and every argument and shown where it is unsound. 

Also please note that you have left two of my questions unanswered. If you're going to accuse me of avoiding things, you shouldn't also do the same.

[Catharsis]

Neither does it mean a god didn't.

---

To make aware there's only one god really.

Well, go ahead and give us your best argument for god, then!

God?
The best argument for a creator would be its creation, but since there's no evidence of any creation I believe we'll stay stuck in this.. er... existence.

[The Valkyrie]

Slartibardfast.

Just saying.

[brewer]

Even if I give you that argument, right down to the contingency of the universe on the prime mover, that still would only be an argument for a prime mover, do you understand? 

That's right. I just said that. I understand it. 

A Prime Mover is a Prime Mover, and if a Christian wants to argue for more attributes, he needs to make separate arguments.

Why do I have to say things twice?

What is your definition of god, Belaqua?

I don't have one, particularly. I am working on several different ones. 

Then there is the apophatic idea of God, which makes the lack of our ability to define God something important in our understanding. That's an interesting train of thought. 

I'm not avoiding anything, and I'm not lying. And it's not fair of you to accuse me. 

You don't like my answers, that's all. 

You said very clearly that only science-type evidence is evidence. If that's what you think, that's your metaphysical commitment. 

I'm perfectly happy to say "I don't know" about a lot of these questions. Unlike you, I haven't yet mastered each and every argument and shown where it is unsound. 

Also please note that you have left two of my questions unanswered. If you're going to accuse me of avoiding things, you shouldn't also do the same.

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetPos

Sounds like it all might just be mental masturbation and in the end amount to nothing.

[fredd bear]

Slartibardfast.

Just saying.

---or you'll be late; as in"the late Arthur Dent" 

[Belacqua]

That's right. I just said that. I understand it. 

A Prime Mover is a Prime Mover, and if a Christian wants to argue for more attributes, he needs to make separate arguments.

Why do I have to say things twice?


I don't have one, particularly. I am working on several different ones. 

Then there is the apophatic idea of God, which makes the lack of our ability to define God something important in our understanding. That's an interesting train of thought. 

I'm not avoiding anything, and I'm not lying. And it's not fair of you to accuse me. 

You don't like my answers, that's all. 

You said very clearly that only science-type evidence is evidence. If that's what you think, that's your metaphysical commitment. 

I'm perfectly happy to say "I don't know" about a lot of these questions. Unlike you, I haven't yet mastered each and every argument and shown where it is unsound. 

Also please note that you have left two of my questions unanswered. If you're going to accuse me of avoiding things, you shouldn't also do the same.

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetPos

Sounds like it all might just be mental masturbation and in the end amount to nothing.

That's right. I think every student of metaphysics knows that much of it will never be proved.

Why does that make it not worth our time?

Are you such a Puritan that you hate masturbation?